Israel's chances for peace

The Times is completely off base when it assigns any desire for peace to Israel. Sixty years without a solution are no accident. It is abundantly clear from Israel's actions that it wants territorial expansion, which is incompatible with peace. Israel's government has supported and continues to support the settler movement by issuing new tenders for building and by blowing up the homes of innocent Palestinian civilian families.

Hamas has not sent mixed signals on the subject of a peace agreement. A spokesman clearly stated in April that if Israel were to accept the Saudi peace plan, Hamas would implement a truce.

Israel is in full control, make no mistake about that. If it really wanted peace, it could have it tomorrow.

Jerrold Cohen

Seal Beach

--

Why should Israel change anything when the American taxpayer hands over billions yearly to help subsidize its current policies?

Thirty years ago, we successfully negotiated the treaty between Israel and Egypt, which resulted in three decades of peace between the two countries.

Spending billions on what hasn't worked while ignoring what has -- yes, a paradox.

George Saade

Downey

--

Consider the following scenario: A carjacker points a gun at your head and says, "Give me the keys to your car, or I will shoot you. By the way, if you give me the keys to your car, I will shoot you anyway."

Now consider this scenario: The Palestinians insist, "Remove your settlements from Gaza, or we will kill you. By the way, if you remove your settlements from Gaza, we will kill you anyway."

The first scenario is fiction. The second is fact.

The Times correctly points out that one of the obstacles to peace is the refusal of Israel's Arab neighbors to accept the existence of a Jewish state. Doesn't it make sense to deal with this issue before addressing the others?